Gujarat Anti-Terror Bill Cleared by Centre, Sent to President for Assent

Discussion in 'Internal Security' started by Screambowl, Sep 25, 2015.

  1. Screambowl

    Screambowl Ghanta Senior Member? Senior Member

    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes Received:


    The Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime (GCTOC) Bill, 2015 has been cleared by the BJP led National Democratic Alliance.

    NEW DELHI: A controversial anti-terror bill, passed by the Gujarat assembly but twice rejected by the previous UPA government, has been cleared by the Narendra Modi government and sent to the President for his assent.

    The Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime (GCTOC) Bill, 2015, which has been hanging fire since Modi, as Gujarat Chief Minister first introduced it in 2003, has been sent to President Pranab Mukherjee for his assent, a Home Ministry official said.

    The bill provides for admissibility of evidence collected through interception of mobile calls of an accused or through confessions made before an investigating officer, in a court of law.

    In July, the National Democratic Alliance government at the Centre had sent back the controversial Bill to the state government asking it to clarify on certain issues raised by the Ministry of Information and Technology (IT). They had objected to the provision in the Bill which allows authorisation of interception of telephone conversations and their admissibility as evidence before a court of law.

    The Gujarat government had strongly rebutted the objections raised by the Ministry. In its reply, the Gujarat government cited the subjects mentioned in the 'concurrent list' under which the Centre and the state share the responsibility of formulating 'criminal law' and criminal procedure'.

    The Central government has given its consent to the provision of extensions of time limit for filing of charge sheet from 90 days to 180 days after consultation with other Central ministries.

    The Gujarat Assembly in March had passed the stringent Bill retaining controversial provisions that had twice earlier led to a previous such Bill being rejected by the President.

    The Bill was first rejected by then President APJ Abdul Kalam in 2004, demanding that the clause relating to interception of communication be removed. It was again rejected when Pratibha Patil was the President.

    On both the occasions, the then UPA government recommended to the President for rejection of the Bill saying several provisions of the GCTOC were not in conformity of the Central law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
    A chauhan and jackprince like this.
  3. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Mar 10, 2009
    Likes Received:
    EST, USA
    The President will sign it. In India, the Prime Minister is more powerful than the President.

    I suppose the discussion should be on the merits and demerits of this bill.
  4. jackprince

    jackprince Turning into a frog Senior Member

    Mar 30, 2009
    Likes Received:
    soon to be Bengalistan
    Confession made before the investigation officer should be on camera and with presence of at least a senior officer. Otherwise, it gives a lots of leeway for abuse of that provision.

    Actually, this provision should not be. The confession under duress is pretty easy to extract, and we all know how it worked in everywhere before when due process and proper safe guard was not in place. The admissibility of confession should be kept as it is now- confession before a magistrate only.
  5. saty

    saty Tihar Jail Banned

    Sep 11, 2015
    Likes Received:
    Do you know terror.... Aam Abdul favorite pass time is put bombs in temples,buses&trains and BOOM 100 died.There is no way to prove Abdul is actually kept a bag in those places except by self confession or by CCTV cameras.Is it possible to put CC in all public places NO. In courts Moderate Muslim lawyer keep on changing goal posts and cases will be dragged decades or in favor of Abdul.Let us assume CCTV captured it how can you prove Abdul family supported in bomb making and some local leader 2nd Abdul financed it.Do you want to leave his family&leader?

    Don't underestimate tje police they know who did it (many cases) after interrogation but lacks evidence.So some way other we need strong law to put these Abdul's in jail or only choice is encounter.
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2015

Share This Page